Harry's Place

The pope and Livingstone in one day. Venichka’s going to have a seizure.

my bet is Brown’s out of no. 10 within 2 years max. more probably less than a year, he’s politically useless and just making it easy for the Tories to take power.

The curious thing about Brown is that his two biggest admirers in the editors’ charis are Paul Dacre and Will Lewis – of the Mail and Torygraph respectively. So while even the Guardian is baying for Brown’s blood, two of the most right-wing papers are trying to pull their punches with regard to the Great Leader (contrary to the inclinations of most of their readers and to the bafflement of the hacks on those papers).

Dacre it seems admires Brown as a great moralist (ie sanctimonious twat) Lewis I suspect has some fellow feeling with a man who has displayed similar judgment, leadership and ability to win the loyalty and affection of his underlings.

I like how the nickname ‘Broonite’ emphasises that Brown is one of those dirty sweaty socks.

I read a whole page of the NS in the library last week Benjamin. I’d comment further if I could remember what it said.

Livingstone is a politician who showed no loyalty at all to Labour: running against its candidate in 2000, and filling the top positions up with members of the extremist and anti-Labour political party, Socialist Action.

Oh steady on. The chap did return to Labour and won the party an election in the capital. “Extremist anti-Labour political party” sounds very exciting but these folk were just paid professionals who used to be in lefty party. Sound familiar?

Many hard pressed working folk who don’t have time to engage in lefty groupscule talk can thank Ken for a London Living Wage too, and he also implemented some of the greenest policies in a generation.

4 comments by Benjamin, not one addressing the subject of the post. I suppose that would have been too much to ask.

hard pressed working folk = Polish plumbers.

They told me if Bush was re-elected that powerful forces in government would use intimidation and thuggery to shape what is said about them in editorial offices and newsrooms — and they were right!

I’m deleting any Benji comments which are waffle, but keeping any ones which make substantive points.

Many hard pressed working folk who don’t have time to engage in lefty groupscule talk

Lehman Brothers staff?
Labour Scottish Ministers?

“these folk were just paid professionals who used to be in lefty party”

They were still in Socialist Action.

Not the end of the world though David. It is barely a party, even if it exists at all, and there is nothing wrong with folk being in parties anyway.

Nothing wrong with it at all. Lost Ken my support, though.

That Bright documentary was all over the place. Pisspoor journalism that even Livingstone haters have to admit.

He should’ve been sacked for that alone.

If not that, then maybe undermining any shred of journalistic integrity by campaigning for Johnson in the pages of the Evening Standard the night of the broadcast* might have been enough to get him the heave ho.

*or was it the day after?

Leave McUseless alone. Tractor production has increased by 0.00001% this month, the 4735th month in a row.

“That Bright documentary was all over the place. Pisspoor journalism that even Livingstone haters have to admit.”

No it wasn’t.

“undermining any shred of journalistic integrity by campaigning for Johnson in the pages of the Evening Standard the night of the broadcast”

Lefty drivel. The BBC campaigns for the current bunch of thugs and gangsters all the time, never mind the Guardian.

Pisspoor journalism that even Livingstone haters have to admit.

No we don’t. I thought it was quite good and certainly did the trick in getting rid of the newt-fiddler.

“my bet is Brown’s out of no. 10 within 2 years max”

Hmmm … when is the GE due at the latest? Or are you saying that the current mafiosi will try to delay it by calling a national emergency? (I am saying nought).

He’ll be out no later than by the early hours after the next GE, whenever that is.

Anyone who knows Atma Singh well, will know that using him as a key informant displays a breathtaking lack of judgement.

It lumped structural critiques of the GLA system together with attacks on Livingstone’s policies and allegations of Trotskyist intrigue into one jumbled mess.

And claimed that the Fourth International was based in Moscow.

Good work.

What will it take for a palace coup to remove Brown. A full cabinet member to come out against him? Currently Labour is like a gut shot buffalo; careering around damaging things without realising that it is already dead.

“That Bright documentary was all over the place. Pisspoor journalism that even Livingstone haters have to admit.”

If it was so “pisspoor”, why did Livingstone lovers shit themselves over it?

indeed, I do forget when the next General Election should be ?

18 months ? 2 years? my mind is not too good at the moment :)

That is because what was wrong with Livingstone’s administration included the following:

- Livingstone’s policies and deportment
- Socialist Action intrigue
- Structural issues within the GLA which allowed these two problems to fester

certainly did the trick in getting rid of the newt-fiddler.

No it didn’t. The economy and an anti-Labour trend did it for Livingstone. He did a bit better than the trend but still fell. Blairites will see it as ‘revenge’, but its not, he just suffered in the general anti-Labour onslaught.

“I’m going to talk to Geoffrey… He can’t allow criticism of Gordon

Does anyone genuinely believe that this comment attributed to Whelan – apparently in full earshot of Thorpe et al – is remotely likely?

and
- Livingstone

Perhaps I’ll try to write a clerihew along the lines of the one about G.III.

“he just suffered in the general anti-Labour onslaught”

Bingo. Apologia for thugs from the usual source.
He suffered because enough Londoners decided that they’d had enough of being screwed over by this particular grotesque blunder.

I’m repeatedly unamazed by the foolishness of politicians, Brownie.

I think the clue is ‘rambling monologue’.

i.e. Whelan a bit worse for wear.

I don’t know which I’m happier about, staying out of the City or getting out of the Labour Party.

Me too, which is why I can readily believe Whelan going into one. But making not-even-thinly-veiled threats to get Bright sacked….to his wfie?

And what of

Michael Danson, a self-made millionaire, now owns 50 percent of the Statesman and Robinson the other half. They must both agree on important decisions, and Danson is very unhappy about politicians telling him who he can and cannot hire.

Didn’t stop him okaying Cowley as the new editor, did it?

What was really wrong with the Livingstone administration of course was that he had not gone to the right schools and did not doff his cap to the right establishment figures.

As for Bright and the New Statesman who cares (for once – possibly for the first time ever) I am in complete agreement with Benji, the New Stateman never put a dinner on the table of the poorest single mother or helped a jobseeker attend an interview through cheaper bus fares.

“I’m going to talk to Geoffrey… He can’t allow criticism of Gordon

BTW, I’m not just querying this for its transparent foolishness. It’s that the phraseology doesn’t ring true, especially for a pissed up Whelan.

Disclaimer: Bright is one of the few bright (pun intended) spots in TNS. The majority of the contributors disappeared up their own arseholes once they decided Labour in power wasn’t as much fun. So, frankly, whatever Cowley turns it into, it can’t be as bad as it is currently.

Apologia for thugs from the usual source.

Well for starters I am not offering “apologia” for anyone, just stating my views on why Livingstone lost: he was a Labour incumbent and Labour incumbents got slammed that night (he did slightly better than the national trend). Livingstone may be many things but he is not a ‘thug’ – that’s just more hyperbole on your part.

David T: “That is because what was wrong with Livingstone’s administration included the following:

- Livingstone’s policies and deportment
- Socialist Action intrigue
- Structural issues within the GLA which allowed these two problems to fester”

So was it

(a) a documentary about the failings of London government?

(b) an expose of corruption and Socialist Action?

(c) a political broadcast against Livingstone’s policies?

All three, I guess.

Only (a) is nothing to do with Livingstone, but was still portrayed as such, (b) was a laughable hotpotch of unsubstantiated smear and inaccurate and unfounded allegations about the LDA and (c) was surely out of place in a supposedly impartial non-party political broadcast.

Like I said, a pisspoor piece of journalism.

Still, Atma Singh talking about the likes of John Ross establishing “a bourgeoise City state” in London did provide some high comedy value. The mad bastard.

What was really wrong with the Livingstone administration of course was that he had not gone to the right schools and did not doff his cap to the right establishment figures.

And all the rest Graham.

The rest was froth – what I mentioned was what he was never forgiven for and also what will keep any other prospective politicians from such backgrounds in their placers.

Ken’s lose had little or nothing to do with the anti Labour swing. There was a higher than expected turn out in Tory boroughs – which was in stark contrast to the local elections across the rest of the country where turn out was down. It was a Tory revival wot won it, issues like crime and the congestion charge. Everyone knows Ken is his own man so the anti Labour line won’t wash.

Stringerbell:

In fairness to Ken, that’s essentially what he said. His ‘defence’ was “I only did what I did because of the way the GLA was set up and I WARNED THEM ABOUT IT!!!”

He certainly had a point.

However, it is an unappealing defence, isn’t it? It is a bit like a knifeman saying “I TOLD you not to get me those Sabatiers for my birthday and now look at you – blood all OVER your dress!”

This Martin Bright thing is hardly surprising. For years Brown has had a strong say in what goes into the New Statesman, which is why it was so controversial when they were smearing Blair every week. It was always bound to have consequences for journalists if they didn’t toe the line once Brown became leader.

I you live by the sword, you must die by the sword.

what will keep any other prospective politicians from such backgrounds in their places

If you mean that it will exclude crazed trots then I am fully in agreement.

Of course – because anyone who didn’t go to a grammar school would be a “crazed Trot” wouldn’t they?

Is that a chip I see on your shoulder, Graham? ;)

“Livingstone may be many things but he is not a ‘thug’ – that’s just more hyperbole on your part”

Yeees … screaming at a Jewish reporter that he is worse than a concentration camp guard is not thuggish behaviour … right …
But then, your sojourn in the workers’ paradise of China must have immunised you against seeing these things.

No its a giant bruschetta Mike – now get the bean out of your own eye and you may be able to see exactly where the chips actually are being shouldered

“What was really wrong with the Livingstone administration of course was that he had not gone to the right schools and did not doff his cap to the right establishment figures”

Of course. On Planet Lunacy.

Neither Blair, Cameron, Clegg, or Johnson went to a Grammar School. So exactly what is your point?

My point (as you well know) was that neither Blair, Cameron, Clegg or Johnson went to a comprehensive near a sink estate either.

But I guess I have now roused the little Eton-style gang who really have benefitted from getting rid of Livingstone and am about to be given a Tom Brown style roasting fro my troubles…

Ho hum

Well I am sure that they did not teach good manners at Livingstone’s school.

But please point out where the “screaming” occurs in the following transcript as I am sure we would all like to see the point identified:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/feb/25/localgovernment.politicsandthemedia

Do we really have to revisit the zillion “why Ken lost” threads which were themselves a luke warm rehash of the other zillion “why ken must win/lose” threads?

This is a *different* issue and the merits/foibles of Mr Livingstone are only peripheral.

Livingstone a “thug”. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

A far better man than those who any of those vindictively grind axes and obsess preposterously and lie (deluding themselves that they are being honest) about him will ever be.

Let’s hope he’ll be back in charge come 2012. The present leader sure ain’t up to the task.

I used to know a rather nice girl who went to a comprehensive called Justine Greening. Now a Tory MP.

Perhaps I ought to be supporting her.

William Hague went to a comprehensive. So did Theresa May. And Liam Fox.

All good chaps because – you see – they went to comprehensives.

This is a *different* issue and the merits/foibles of Mr Livingstone are only peripheral.

My first comment was more about Bright and the NS than Ken. I can’t be blamed for the fact that HP threads are full of priveliged ex grammar-school types waiting to attack anyboidy from a different backgrouind on the basis of their class.

All good chaps because – you see – they went to comprehensives.

Hardly (and thatis hardly my point, comprehensives contain as many, if not more nasty types than grammars) however anyone really trying to make the point that British politics is an equal slate because William Hague and a couple of other Tory MP’s went to comprehensives is seriously approaching delusion IMHO.

David Davis came from a sink estate and went to a comp. Is he more your sort of thing Graham?

And lets face it Mr Hague, Ms May (and Mr David Davies for that matter) may just be better cap-doffers (which, for those who, chomping at the bit to take the more obvious class reference, did not notice was the other part of my reason for Ken’s downfall.)

David Davis came from a sink estate and went to a comp. Is he more your sort of thing Graham?

Well 1 out of 646 will have to do now I suppose.

Living in London when you are on a low wage, or even an average wage is difficult. I have no doubt that these folk’s lives are going to get more difficult under Johnson, compared to Ken. The London Living Wage was a historic achievement. If the Labour Party exists for anything at all it should exist to help folk on the lower rungs. By a country mile, Livingstone was more likely than Johnson to deliver for those folk.

By the way David T, who did you eventually vote for in the Mayoral? Obviously, you are not obliged to say.

Boris’s brother Alan is another…

I do have some time for Alan Johnson. However Brett want’s to discuss the journalistic shennanigans so I’ll bow out with a big “hear hear” to Benji’s 6.05 comment.

(I’ve come over all faint even saying that.)

I barely even went to the comprehensive that I supposed to be going to. It doesn’t show, does it?

I think Graham’s wider point – that the majority of those in whose hands the reins of power currently rest are unrepresentative of the population at large, whether judged by the schools they attended, the families they were born into or the generally priviliged upbringings they enjoyed – is one only a lobotomised gnat would reject.

Far from having chips on shoulders, the reason things are the way they are is in no small part due to a shortage of people who care enough to be angry about this sort of injustice and inequality. You can call it the deference of the proles to those who are born to rule.

I call it cock.

Benji, stop meddling in our internal affairs. You are effectively a foreign national these days.

One further quick comment – I am not lauding the comprehensive school system as presently constituted in any way. My attitude (badly put over several arguments with Old P if anyone remembers) is that both the types of schools mentioned have their problems.

But anyway, back to Martin Bright-Eyes and his battle with Gordon Broundwort.

It’s too late, Graham. Your class warfare crap has sunk this thread.

Sorry to introduce a level of reality into your comfortable delusion of a life Mike.

GRAHAM

What was really wrong with the Livingstone administration of course was that he had not gone to the right schools and did not doff his cap to the right establishment figures.

And the fact that he accomodated Leninist freeloaders like Richard Farnos and attempting to compartmentalise Londonders into neat ethnic boxes, which is as actionable as Bojo taking on the Bulington Clubbers.

*This* is what hubris means, Nearly. And it overwhelms those the best of men.

Graham @ 1836 hrs, wa-haha!

And the fact that he accomodated Leninist freeloaders like Richard Farnos

As opposed to the criminals and shysters that Boris has been accomodating at a much higher level?

Graham is being elitist against people who don’t have lives. He thinks I should have to doff my cap to people that do.

Neither Blair, Cameron, Clegg, or Johnson went to a Grammar School.

Yeah, they went to Fettes, Westminster and Eton. What the bloody hell is your point, Stu?

Gayham @ 1931 hrs, that should have been covered by my remark about his getting in the Bullington Clubbers to smash up local pubs.

I think Graham’s wider point – that the majority of those in whose hands the reins of power currently rest are unrepresentative of the population at large, whether judged by the schools they attended, the families they were born into or the generally priviliged upbringings they enjoyed – is one only a lobotomised gnat would reject.

Yes, but I’d expand on this, it isn’t just a matter of the right wing. The left wing has its own elites. Some professions create elites. And then there’s London and which has it’s own little liberal elite echo chamber. There are barriers of all sorts.

None of this excuses Livingstone; who has incidently gone on to get a job with another elite.

Ken Livingstone and Hugo Chavez share similar socialist views.

Well, that’s the Yardies funding sources sorted out.

“My point (as you well know) was that neither Blair, Cameron, Clegg or Johnson went to a comprehensive near a sink estate either.

But I guess I have now roused the little Eton-style gang who really have benefitted from getting rid of Livingstone”

Not so much a chip as a slag mountain.

“A far better man than those who any of those vindictively grind axes and obsess preposterously and lie (deluding themselves that they are being honest) about him will ever be”

Lost it completely, mate. He is a man who abused his position to fraternise with terrorists at Londoners’ expense.

I see that Alec has finally bought a dictionary, even though not a very good one.

None of this excuses Livingstone; who has incidently gone on to get a job with another elite.

Livingstone is the past (sorry Ven but I can’t see him making a comeback at his age) what matters now is how future politicians from such a background are treated (personally I think the door closed just a little and in terms of HP pointless jerks were encouraged to answer substantive points with trie cliche’s about “chips” on shoulders.

Gayham @ 1931 hrs, that should have been covered by my remark about his getting in the Bullington Clubbers to smash up local pubs.

Gayham?

Neither James McGrath nor Ray lewis were members of the Bullingdon club as far as I know.

Ken’s gone, Brown’s on the slid, I wonder when politicians will learn that their own hubris is often the cause of their own downfall?

The simple answer to that Mod is never.

Bring on the next Faustus!

(Is it hubris or hamartia which is the problem by the way?)

I’ve just laid a metaphorical £5 on my blog on Labour losing and David Cameron being Prime Minister by the spring of 2009. We’re fucked – despite Poly Toynbee’s embrace of class warfare as the way to beat “Dave”.

Graham,

Ken’s doing well for himself, he fucked up big time, it is HIS fault, get over it

we are stuck with those Tory wankers because of Ken’s arrogance, politics and attitude, it is Ken’s fault that he lost, he’s to blame

Ken’s doing well enough, he’s got a pay off from City Hall, own’s property, has investments, money coming in from Latin America and other places, he’s not exactly on his uppers.

Ken is nicely middle class, probably worth a million or 2 (didn’t he make £300K a year before being Mayor, for a few years with speaking, journalism, etc?)

I don’t lose any sleep over poor old Ken.

So it was Polly Toynbee who was following the Tory candidate around before the Crewe by-election calling him a toff?

All this (media-and-blogger) speculation about the PM’s future. We’ve heard it all before-

http://armchairnews.co.uk/2008/09/14/labour-demands-for-leadership-challenge-far-too-late/

Much as many of us on the ‘centre left’ wish to be rid of Brown quickly, the reality is that he will be PM until he -and Labour -are ousted from power by the voters. Simple as.

we are stuck with those Tory wankers because of Ken’s arrogance, politics and attitude, it is Ken’s fault that he lost, he’s to blame

I don’t think for a second this is all true (I wonder for instance how much any future working-class politician will trust the back stabbers in the Labour party who so preferred Boris) but as I just said Ken is the past now so I guess we need to wait for another politician with the poor’s interests at heart – only been one in my lifetimes, now who was it? Oh yes it was ken.

There weren’t many people in the Labour party who wanted Boris to win. There must have been only a handful of single issue voters who felt that way.

He received strong support from most, despite having stabbed Labour in the back himself in the past. A number of factors – the personal popularity of Boris, Ken’s corruption allegations, the issue of teenage stabbings, and the unfortunate class warfare crap that was in vogue with Brown’s election coordinators at that time – saw him defeated. Not Labour members switching to Boris.

Okay!

IMPORTANT NOTICE

I’m deleting any further comments relating to (a) the merits/demeritis of KL and (b) the class issue.

Here is the line I’m drawing under this OT nonsense I’ve tolerated for long enough:

___________________________

Doesn’t that just leave us with “Blair good, Brown bad” – discuss?

“Doesn’t that just leave us with “Blair good, Brown bad” – discuss?”

Only if you think it isn’t problematic for Prime Ministers to use their MPs who own major media titles to sack journalists who displease them…

Doesn’t that just leave us with “Blair good, Brown bad” – discuss?

I imagine it leaves us with ‘Did Gordon Brown try to get Martin Bright sacked?’

Well: “Word has it, Gordon Brown went beserk.”

I mean isn’t Bright just using K** L********* as an excuse for the fact that Cowley wants a new look magazine? Tribune has no mention of any Brown revenge plot (which all seems a bit far-fetched considering his well-known views on K** L********?

(By the way, literary footnote. I am sure you have to be “high-born” to exhibit hubris.)

I have nothing to add to this discussion.

General Custer was low-born.

“If the Labour Party exists for anything at all it should exist to help folk on the lower rungs. By a country mile, Livingstone was more likely than Johnson to deliver for those folk.”

Am I breaking the rule if I say that I agree with Benji for once? Again. Oh Benji. Why do you say such sensible things sometimes?

Anyway, I quite like Martin Bright. Thought the “Court of Ken” effort was rather like the curate’s egg. The stuff about Ken drinking whisky was pretty irrelevant and took up loads of time, though. Yawnsville. The rest was well done, if possibly placing too much emphasis on those issues rather than the bread and butter ones. I felt very ambivalent about that programme.

I do love internal Labour politics. It’s almost exactly like being back in the Labour Club and the Student Union. So, Gordon hates Ken but both Ken and Gordon hate Martin Bright because Gordon wanted Ken to win. The lefties hate Gordon and Martin Bright (for being a smarmy Blairite – that’s the bit of him I quite like) but love Ken. The Blairites hate Gordon and Ken and like Martin Bright, mostly, despite the fact he’s a little off message in terms of party loyalty sometimes. Everybody hates Charlie Whelan (apart from Gordon). Did I get that right? I think so.

Benji often says lots of little cliched obvious things; straw men that nobody disagrees with in the first place. That’s one of the reasons why he is so irritating.

Why people feel the need to say they agree with him when he does this – why can’t he agree with you? – will never reach my comprehensive. But then lots of things don’t do that.

Or my comprehension. Comprehensives was an earlier discussion.

Whether he did or not clearly proves that Gordon is self obsessed with spin just like his predecessor. Each party has their legacies the tories and their sleaze and the neo labour and their spin what next a combination of the two ?

My guess is that that Martin Bright’s career as a political journalist will long outlast Gordon Brown’s sojourn at Number 10.

Bright’s career as a political journalist ended with the broadcast of the Dispatches smear-fest. Even leaving aside the appalling quality of the smears, that he chose to piss away almost an entire hour of telly on them and then squeeze all the valid criticism he had into the last two minutes, showed he really isn’t a political journalist worth any salt. He sacrificed any and all credibility, most probably to get a fellow hack elected, and he won’t be getting it back any time soon.

So what we have is Brown’s minions trying to oust a contrary rent-a-quote. Which is wrong on too many levels to count, from the assault on the freedom of the press to the embarassment of a Prime Minister trying to get a measly columnist sacked. Brown’s problem is that he’s used to being in a government that exerts a great deal of control on the media, but doesn’t have anyone capable of doing that. If Alistair Campbell was still in Downing Street, Bright would have been bullied down long ago. Charlie Whelan is a poor substitute for a real attack dog. Once again Brown is hoist by his own pathetic and pointless attempts to ape Blair. He still hasn’t grasped that if anybody wanted this kind of a premiership, then nobody would have supported the ousting of Blair in the first place.

Brett

“Only if you think it isn’t problematic for Prime Ministers to use their MPs who own major media titles to sack journalists who displease them…”

I don’t see why it is problematic. Surely the problem only comes if Brown were to use his office inappropriately (offering a special tax concession for instance) to do so. What is wrong with the PM suggesting to one of his MPs what he, the MP, might like to do with his own property?

So Much for Subtlety

You put it rather gently. I think its clearly inappropriate for the Prime Minister to try to get someone removed or muffled at an independent publication because their views; if that is what happened that is wrong – quite irrespective of any technical argument about his office.

As for Bright’s documentary, I have yet to see any compelling evidence to back up his work. If Bright’s aim was to produce a compendium of anything possibly wrong with Ken, with the help of folk with an axe to grind, that’s one thing. In the case of Ken, this is a rather an easy thing to do, given his long and winding road in politics and the Labour Party. In the run up to an election too, Bright would have had no shortage of sources eager to stick the boot in.

However, that is somewhat different from a focused investigation of substantial allegations.

“What is wrong with the PM suggesting to one of his MPs what he, the MP, might like to do with his own property?”

Everything, in a country that claims to be free. It’s called abusing your position. Of course, Brown’s instincts are those of a dictator. He is a weak and useless person, but (maybe not even ‘but’, rather ‘and therefore naturally’) he is fundamentally a bully.

“the tories and their sleaze and the neo labour and their spin”

So-called Labour are easily as sleazy as the Tories ever were.

“we need to wait for another politician with the poor’s interests at heart – only been one in my lifetimes, now who was it? Oh yes it was ken”

Never heard of Frank Field, I see. There are scads of others, in all parties. And pretentious nonentities like KL in all parties.

Gregg on Bright

“He sacrificed any and all credibility, most probably to get a fellow hack elected, and he won’t be getting it back any time soon.”

What a load of bollocks. Have no idea who you are but you sound like one of those creeps who kept coming here in the run up to the Mayoral election.

I thought the Despatches on Livingstone was fairly average, but certainly didn’t have any negative impact on the ‘credibility’ of the journalist.

If you visit Brights blog, you will see plenty of people with whom he has ‘lost credibility’.

They are mainly muslim, rant on about ‘Zionazis’ and are altogether not the type of people whose opinion matters much.

I agree that with a small group of extreme Islamists Bright is very, very, unpopular.

But I suspect to most people, sound of mind and without an axe to grind, that makes him brave, rather than lacking in ‘credibility’.

Matt

What Mike said about Benji, only more so.

OT – another good piece by Monbiot on UK libel laws:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/matthiasrath.medialaw

Only if you think it isn’t problematic for Prime Ministers to use their MPs who own major media titles to sack journalists who displease them…

As soon as someone provides some evidence that this actually happened, I’d be happy to discuss it.

And I’m still waiting for someone to explain how Cowley got the top job if he’s that bad and Danson has an equal say in all the “important decisions”.

Benjamin

“I think its clearly inappropriate for the Prime Minister to try to get someone removed or muffled at an independent publication because their views; if that is what happened that is wrong – quite irrespective of any technical argument about his office.”

I don’t see what is wrong with it. Brown does not cease to be a person with opinions and rights because he is the PM. To threaten or promise to use the office as a reward would be wrong, but to ask, one person to another, is not wrong as far as I can see.

Nearly Oxfordian

“Everything, in a country that claims to be free. It’s called abusing your position. Of course, Brown’s instincts are those of a dictator. He is a weak and useless person, but (maybe not even ‘but’, rather ‘and therefore naturally’) he is fundamentally a bully.”

In a free country, the PM ought to be free to do quite a lot of things as long as he stays within the law. Offering a reward or issuing a threat would be wrong. But asking Robinson to remove the editor of a publication Robinson owns is neither. Where is the abuse of office? At most you might argue it creates an appearance of an abuse, it implies on, one might be inferred, but then you would have to take the position that the PM must be like Caesar’s wife. Does anyone?

Brown might be all those things. I don’t know. I don’t see how it affects the rights and wrongs of this case.

So Much For Subtlety, let’s take a similar example and apply your morality.

Young Smith goes to The Bank to apply for a personal loan for some scheme, and Bank Manager, applying the rules and doing the sums, turns him down. It happens that Young Smith’s father, Old Smith is a close friend of Bank Owner, and in retribution asks Bank Owner to fire Bank Manager.

Nothing wrong here, right? Just a friend asking a friend for a favour. Just a business owner doing with his own property what he pleases.

Brett, well yes. I mean I find it hard to see what is wrong there at all. I would assume the friend would decline, but there is nothing inherently wrong with doing just that.

Can you please explain to me why you think the State needs to step in to prevent two adults doing a private act that does not materially affect anyone else?

“Offering a reward or issuing a threat would be wrong. But asking Robinson to remove the editor of a publication Robinson owns is neither”

So threatening to remove the editor is wrong, but removing him is OK? Very strange logic.
Well, if you can’t see how this is corrupt there is not a lot more I can say.

Brett,

In both your analogy and the spectacularly unproven allegations against Brown, they key component is whether the bank owner/Robinson shates the view of the old friend/Brown. If the maanger played everything by the book, then natural justice demands he doesn’t lose his job; if the manager somehow screwed up, then sacking might be in order. The pressure from the old friend to sack the maanger is frankly neither here nor there so long as the owner doesn’t cave in when it is an unjust demand. Likewise, even assuming Brown had asked Robinson to sack Bright, the important point is that Robinson did not.

Is Brown entitled to say to his own friend, Robinson, that he thinks Bright is a shit and that he’s doing a disservice to the Labour party? Of course he is – it’s an opinion and one he is perfectly entitled to voice. It only becomes a problem if this results in the unfair dismissal of Bright as consequence. It didn’t.

Nearly Oxfordian

“So threatening to remove the editor is wrong, but removing him is OK? Very strange logic.”

No, threatening Robinson, with a tax audit for instance or new laws on VAT for the NewStatesman, would be wrong. But asking him, nicely, if he would re-consider editor is not, as far as I can see, wrong. Where’s the crime?

“Well, if you can’t see how this is corrupt there is not a lot more I can say.”

I can’t see how it is corrupt at all. I’d like to know so that I can hold it against Brown if it took place, but I don’t see why something that is legal for me shouldn’t be legal for all.

to ask, one person to another, is not wrong as far as I can see.

“Asking” when you are PM is a bit different. Let’s not be naive here; we know how politics works, its not a polite chat between friends.

If Brown was seeking to remove or muzzle Bright, using the tools at his disposal (as PM they are considerable), that’s wrong. Of course, if he was just having a private whinge to Robinson about it, that’s a different matter and we would likely not hear about it.

However, if Brown took active measures to try to get this chap sacked or muzzled that is wrong.

I find this story shocking. Is Brown aping Putin’s style of leadership these days by closing down press criticisms? Okay its not the same as having state security raid media stations but lobbying an independent magazine to fire a journo is pretty low.

And this from an un-elected buffon like our PM makes me want to pack my bags a move to iceland, not the store of course.

SMFS,

Do you not see that something can be legal AND stunningly inappropriate? There is a difference between a request from a random individual and a request from the Prime Minister.

Only half of the above was in English, but I think you get the point.

My guess is that Brown is not enamoured of Bright and probably would be silently pleased if Bright were sacked. I also have no trouble believing Brown has voiced his dislike of Bright in conversations with friends, including but probably not limited to Robinson. However, the claim that the anti-Ken Dispatches program is supposed to have sent Brown into an apoplectic fit just doesn’t ring true. I’ve no doubt Brown wanted Ken to beat Boris, but he doesn’t care enough about Ken for the program to have engendered unmitigated fury.

Suggesting Brown has been pressuring Robinson to sack Bright is going about 47 steps further than claims Brown doesn’t like Bright and has been bad-mouthing him to friends (including Robinson). Given there is close to zero evidence to sustain such an accusation, I think the post is a mistake.

That said, at least you write posts.

It’s nothing to do with a specific crime, Subtlety. It’s to do with a particular attitude towards the press and freedom of speech. Prime Ministers seeking sackings or staff changes in the independent media because of folk’s political leanings or something they wrote has nothing to do with a free media, and is a dangerous precedent.

Is Brown aping Putin’s style of leadership

Better than aping Stalin methinks…

Benjamin

““Asking” when you are PM is a bit different. Let’s not be naive here; we know how politics works, its not a polite chat between friends.”

Well I don’t know that. Depends how close Brown and Robinson are. And the boot may easily be on the other foot – it is not like other polite chats. How many editors must lie awake at night dreaming of the opportunity to take a principled stand against Government Bullying and following Sir Thomas More to the Block!

“If Brown was seeking to remove or muzzle Bright, using the tools at his disposal (as PM they are considerable), that’s wrong.”

Indeed. Even implicitly.

“Of course, if he was just having a private whinge to Robinson about it, that’s a different matter and we would likely not hear about it.”

Which is far more likely – and all that has been alleged from what I can see – and I think we are just as likely to hear about it.

“However, if Brown took active measures to try to get this chap sacked or muzzled that is wrong.”

Up to a point I’d agree. I don’t think journalists are the Precious Sacred Creatures they obviously think they are. PMs sack people all the time and I don’t see why a journalist is special. But I am more or less on the same page.

Minoan

“Okay its not the same as having state security raid media stations but lobbying an independent magazine to fire a journo is pretty low.”

Why? The magazine is not exactly independent given it is owned by an MP. Half owned anyway. But politicians have a right to protect themselves too. I don’t see that being one means you are powerless to take precautions.

Stu

“Do you not see that something can be legal AND stunningly inappropriate? There is a difference between a request from a random individual and a request from the Prime Minister.”

I do but that line is being eroded all the time. Increasingly, for all of us, if it is not illegal it can’t be inappropriate. I don’t see why those declining standards don’t apply to all of us equally.

There is a difference – it would be suicide for a PM.

Up to a point I’d agree. I don’t think journalists are the Precious Sacred Creatures they obviously think they are. PMs sack people all the time and I don’t see why a journalist is special. But I am more or less on the same page.

Basically you need a firm separation between government and the press; you certainly can’t have politicians interfering with the staffing decisions of independent media because of political reasons.

I don’t know if there is any truth to the Bright story though. It’s all a bit “cloak and dagger” as Galloway might say.

The magazine is not exactly independent given it is owned by an MP.

Well, there are many media sources owned by politically connected people, and those with strong views. It does not mean political interference is justified. It doesn’t mean the notion of an independent media goes out the window.

Owners can take a hands off attitude, respecting separation of powers and editorial and journalistic independence. That is not always the case, but its certainly in varying degrees possible. According Kampfner, the previous editor of the NS, Robinson was pretty laissez-faire.

“If the maanger played everything by the book, then natural justice demands he doesn’t lose his job; if the manager somehow screwed up, then sacking might be in order.”

Brownie, in SMFS’s ultra-Libertarian view, whether the employee screwed up or not is neither here nor there. His view is that the boss can sack the employee merely “as a favour to a friend” because it is his company to do with as he pleases.

I don’t think journalists are the Precious Sacred Creatures they obviously think they are. PMs sack people all the time and I don’t see why a journalist is special.

Its seems a little unfair to sack people that you do not employ in the first place. Unless you think that we all work for Brown? If so I am off to Iceland, too.

“Brownie, in SMFS’s ultra-Libertarian view, whether the employee screwed up or not is neither here nor there. His view is that the boss can sack the employee merely “as a favour to a friend” because it is his company to do with as he pleases.”

I don’t see how that’s ultra-libertarian. It is his company. And, as long as he acts within the law, he can pretty much do as he pleases. The shenanigans behind the scenes are, quite frankly, neither here nor there – unless, as I said, those shenanigans are illegal. That’s true of all companies. But are you saying that journalists need to be treated differently to other employees? If so, why?

The premise of the Bright-got-it-in-the-bollocks-coz-he-wasn’t poliite-to-Livingstone may or may not be true. If the effect he had was similar to Nick Cohen and Brett’s line – that Livingstone should be deselected a few months before the election, I can see why more few people wouldn’t like the person doing the damage, however minor this was.

But there is one very false assumption here, which Bright’s documentary made its central argument: that Socialist Action was central to Livingstone’s administration. That this was patently exaggerated everyone knew. Over the summer I met a senior former GLA professional (changed jobs before the election), a lefty as it happens and (hence) no lover of SA, who remarked that this was not so. That some individuals, e.g. Master Bob Pitt, were obscure spear-carriers. Others such as Alan Freeman, known as an ex-IMG economist who writes the most unintelligible ramblings on Marxist value-theory you have ever glanced at and said “not for me!”, was apparently arguing for more support for the kind of City finance business that is so successful at the moment.

In short, the trot-plot was a lot of rot (if I may rhyme).

ultra-Libertarian view

Like the Russian oligarchs’ version of ‘libertarianism’. Liberty for them – not much of a free press though.

I don’t see how that’s ultra-libertarian. It is his company. And, as long as he acts within the law, he can pretty much do as he pleases.

Sacking people on whims IS against the law, dude.

SMFS,

“I don’t think journalists are the Precious Sacred Creatures they obviously think they are. PMs sack people all the time and I don’t see why a journalist is special”

Since when does a PM have the authority to sack or lobby for the sacking of a journalist? PM’s have a right to sack theirn cabinet, but they have zero right to let alone influence the management decisions in the independent media.

This has nothing to do with the shitty standards of most journos these days. That’s for regulators or editors to sort out and the PM should keep his nose out of it.

“Why? The magazine is not exactly independent given it is owned by an MP. Half owned anyway. But politicians have a right to protect themselves too.”

Oh so because a Labour MP is one of the owners the employees for that company can be politically removed form their posts because the PM does not like their articles?

I am amazed you are trying to defend what is deplorable interference into the editorial content of the media.

“Sacking people on whims IS against the law, dude.”

That’s not what I said, is it? I said as long as he acts within the law – and the law says you can’t sack people on whims. Rightly so.

It is also flagrantly against employment law.

SMFS,

Are you on the left? I just ask because I am a shocked someone on the left would condone wrokers losing their jobs because of political interference. I’m not a fan of the unions in general but every employee has rights which include being protected from the very crude practices youn seem to be condoning from our unelected mutant of a PM.

It is his company. And, as long as he acts within the law, he can pretty much do as he pleases.

True, but there is a difference between doing what you please in, say, Russia where ‘libertarianism’ of business people holds complete sway, and political connections are everything, and say the UK, where the notion of an independent media has a stronger cultural import.

Murdoch, you see, can do what he pleases. But, if you look closely, he acts differently in different territories, according to politics and culture. I am just saying that a culture that respects editorial and journalistic independence, and at least tries to keep cronyism in check, is something worth preserving. Why? Might be something to do with democracy.

His view is that the boss can sack the employee merely “as a favour to a friend” because it is his company to do with as he pleases.

Well, I suppose he’s right in fact that he can do as he pleases (so long as he can show/concoct some ‘just cause’ for the sacking that would stand up at tribunal) but I agree this would be wrong. You ought not to lose your job for reasons unconnected to your ability to do it.

I’m going to bow out of this one. I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the TNS in its current incarnation, so I’m gong to stop pretending I care what happens.

I’m going to bow out of this one. I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the TNS in its current incarnation, so I’m gong to stop pretending I care what happens.

Isn’t this the point where some wingnut comes charging in ranting about how this is just the beginning of Brown’s NuLabour Stasi jackbooted attempt to stamp out dissent? Where is Morgoth today?

Isn’t this the point where some wingnut comes charging in ranting about how this is just the beginning of Brown’s NuLabour Stasi jackbooted attempt to stamp out dissent?

That will be Melanie Phillips. She recently wrote that Obama and the Democrats are like the Stasi. She’s well paid to write such bollocks for the Spectator.

“I’m going to bow out of this one. I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the TNS in its current incarnation, so I’m gong to stop pretending I care what happens.”

I think the reason everyone’s getting hot under the collar about this is that the magazine in question is The New Statesman and the journalist is Martin Bright. Like Brownie, I have time for neither of them. More important than that, however, is that I don’t think anyone would get quite so upset if it were Glenda Slagg from The Mail on Sunday magazine allegedly being sacked. Of course, you’ll say there’s a difference – but there isn’t really. You just happen to prefer (for whatever reason) the other magazine, that’s all.

As for this whole story – that is, Brown supposedly trying to get Bright sacked. It sounds to me like a load of old bollocks. And even if it isn’t, it is still only an allegation – so it’s a little bit pointless ranting and raving about it as if it actually happened. In fact, it’s a bit like ranting and raving about the as yet unfounded smear stories against Palin. Right Minoan?

“asking him, nicely, if he would re-consider editor is not, as far as I can see, wrong. Where’s the crime?”

Asking him nicely? ROFL. He is the PM, for Pete’s sake. He doesn’t need to mention his large and easily annoyed friends in so many words. Which planet are you on?

“I don’t see why something that is legal for me shouldn’t be legal for all”

It isn’t legal to sack someone just because you don’t like him. That’s why we have a government that looks after the rights of employees (irony alert).

Minoan, when I say that Brown has Stalinist tendencies people tell me off for being nasty to our nice and efficient leader (tractor production is up again, I am told). Well, he doesn’t have the efficiency of Stalin, but he sure has his instincts.

Paul

That’s too cynical. HP has defended folk on free speech grounds even when it has disagreed with then politically. I don’t have great deal of time for Bright regarding his documentary on Livingstone but I am very happy to defend him against Brown.

“I think the reason everyone’s getting hot under the collar about this is that the magazine in question is The New Statesman and the journalist is Martin Bright”

Well, you are wrong. I despise the New Statesman. This is an issue of press freedom vs. a disgusting bully.

PS.
“I don’t think anyone would get quite so upset if it were Glenda Slagg from The Mail on Sunday magazine allegedly being sacked”

Wrong again. I would.

To suggest that Brown has Stalinist tendencies rather suggests you don’t know what Stalin was like.

“Isn’t this the point where some wingnut comes charging in ranting about how this is just the beginning of Brown’s NuLabour Stasi jackbooted attempt to stamp out dissent?”

Utter bollocks. When this kind of thing starts, there is always a crowd of terribly witty prople who make fun of those protesting by saying: “Ah, dear boy, it’s a storm in a teacup”. Do you need examples?

Benjamin, do fuck off. Your stupidity is limitless. I had relatives incarcerated in labour camps by Stalin.

N.O. “Well, you are wrong. I despise the New Statesman. This is an issue of press freedom vs. a disgusting bully.”

Don’t be silly. You know that this story isn’t true. But you’d love it to be, wouldn’t you? And before you start ranting, I’m no fan of Brown’s either.

Like I say, this is merely smear stuff akin to the merely smear stuff against Palin that you, for one, were getting so upset about.

Nearly,

Well, it could of course be a storm in a teacup – if its not true. Under the hypothesis that it is, it is worrying, though I would not go as far as to say the Brown has Stalinist tendencies.

Benjamin, do fuck off. Your stupidity is limitless. I had relatives incarcerated in labour camps by Stalin.

I see. Then it puzzles me more that you say Brown has Stalinist tendencies.

Benjamin: “I don’t have great deal of time for Bright regarding his documentary on Livingstone but I am very happy to defend him against Brown.”

Defend him from Brown? The story isn’t true! And I’m amazed that you – Mr Pooh-Pooh himself – believes that it is. Why?

“Benjamin, do fuck off. Your stupidity is limitless. I had relatives incarcerated in labour camps by Stalin.”

“I see. Then it puzzles me more that you say Brown has Stalinist tendencies.”

Quite.

Utter bollocks. When this kind of thing starts, there is always a crowd of terribly witty prople who make fun of those protesting by saying: “Ah, dear boy, it’s a storm in a teacup”. Do you need examples?

Yes I would like an example of EXACTLY what you say happening.

Paul

I don’t necessarily believe that it is – it may be false. However if it is – using that hypothesis – I am happy to defend Bright.

Defend him from Brown? The story isn’t true!

Do we know that? Its has truthiness at least.

FYI

Truthiness is a term first used in its current satirical sense by American television comedian Stephen Colbert in 2005, to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

“Do we know that? Its has truthiness at least.”

‘Truthiness’? Well, that settles it then.

As far as I can see the alternative scenario has Jason Cowley (the former editor of The Observer Sports Magazine which pioneered an irreverent populist approach to sports journalism) coming in and deciding that he wanted (and not before time) to get rid of some of the stuffy old journos that had made the NS so boring for decades with their nasty little hatchet-job articles. Bright was considered as editor but lost out.

“Truthiness is a term first used in its current satirical sense by American television comedian Stephen Colbert in 2005, to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.”

Ah, right….

Surely there’s absolutely no doubt that the Labour Party – even those who are anti Livingstone, or Livingstone-sceptic – went utterly mental at anybody who pointed out Livingstone’s many serious flaws in the run up to the London election?

I find it very plausible that Bright has become a hate figure for Brownites. He’s seen as, effectively, a traitor to the Left.

Sad to say, but this is a symptom of Labour’s weakness in these very dark days. Livingstone was correctly identified by Blair, for all his charisma, as a dangerous and foolish choice as candidate for Mayor. In Livingstone’s first term, Blair’s prejudice against Livingstone proved largely unfounded. Livingstone, so it seemed, was a reformed character. In Livingstone’s second term, however, it turned out out to have been absolutely spot on.

What we’re seeing here is basically the mirror image of Labour’s reaction to Derek Hatton and Millitant/RSL’s takeover of Liverpool in the 80s. Back then, a Labour Party which hoped to be elected to national government had little compunction in putting the extremists on the spot, and attacking them openly. Nowadays, with Labour facing electoral oblivion under a weak and diffident leader, the guns are turned on anybody who points out the foolhardiness of allowing the likes of Livingstone to define what it means to be a Labour supporter.

So David, are you saying that Brown did ask for Bright to be sacked?

David T

Not a word about policy. Livingstone carried out Labour policies in London – economically, socially, environmentally. The stuff you and HP talk about are not remotely bread and butter issues, and are exaggerated to an absurd degree.

To compare Socialist Action or Livingstone to Militant is absurd. Livingstone rejoined the party after proving a point – look at the gerrymandering the party engaged to try to stop him. That increased his popularity. He then won an election as fully fledged Labour candidate campaigning on a manifesto approved by the party.

The SA people were professional employees once involved in a socialist party. They were not part of a ‘trot plot’, not least because they advocated conventional capitalist policies, as did Livingstone.

What you call that – deep cover?

Certainly, on some issues, they strayed very far from mainstream Labour.

“Surely there’s absolutely no doubt that the Labour Party – even those who are anti Livingstone, or Livingstone-sceptic – went utterly mental at anybody who pointed out Livingstone’s many serious flaws in the run up to the London election?”

Examples?

Anyway, David T, flawed Livingstone may be, but Labour proved itself incapable of coming up with anyone with his credibility in London. Frank Dobson? Please. He proved his worth by winning two elections, and falling in a third election against a Tory with a high media profile (a leaf out of Livingstone’s book) and characterised by a general heavy anti-Labour backlash – something that he was unable to buck. Bread and butter issues dominated – the economy for one.

“Not a word about policy”

That pretty much sums up Labour under Brown. No policy, just reactionary government and in-party feuding.

This country deserves so much better.

Nowadays, with Labour facing electoral oblivion under a weak and diffident leader, the guns are turned on anybody who points out the foolhardiness of allowing the likes of Livingstone to define what it means to be a Labour supporter.

I am not (and never have been) turning any guns on anybody. The Labour party I have supported over the last few years was the labour party which could contain and benefit from both Blair and Livingstone, and as far as I am concerned the “guns” were turned on a succesful Mayor by supporters of a successful PM. You may not see it that way but please be prepared to accept that some of us do.

Those who caused such a fracture should give it some serious thought. Livingstone’s vote was UP on the day remember, all those Londoners who voted for him are at least potentially wondering why they should vote for a party which seems to exclude anybody who didn’t have the right upbringing.

I don’t want to turn the guns on anyone or have a “class war”. I want a united social-democratic party which does its best for the weakest and the poorest and does not fall into petty factionalism over such nonsense as what one of its most successful politicians says to a journalist outside a drinks party.

I find it very plausible that Bright has become a hate figure for Brownites. He’s seen as, effectively, a traitor to the Left.

I can’t see it. I would be quite happy to read Bright’s journalism again. Mind you I didn’t see the alleged “hatchet-job” on Livingstone.

If Brown really was so sensitive to journalists going against him then Bright seems an odd choice to be the “troublesome priest”.

a party which seems to exclude anybody who didn’t have the right upbringing

I guess people see what they want to see. Chippy proles see a bias against chippy proles, etc.

Isn’t it “turbulent” rather than “troublesome”?

I guess people see what they want to see. Chippy proles see a bias against chippy proles, etc.

I love that phrase “chippy prole”. Used to dismiss legitimate, relevant grievances by self-satisfied middle-class types in the same way that “uppity nigger” was once used – and is probably still used – by rednecks in the south. Nice one Stu.

Actually, I only use it when Graham goes off on one of his class war fantasies. There are so few opportunities to employ it nowadays. Fings are not wot they used to be…

“Actually, I only use it when Graham goes off on one of his class war fantasies. ”

Actually, I think Graham’s “class war fantasies” are often anything but. In fact, they’re mostly very sensible. And I find it a shame that class – particularly when we’re talking about the working-class of Britain – is so routinely dismissed as not important by the contributors and the commenters here. But then, I suppose, that’s what you get when you address an audience that’s made up of middle-class types who, satisfied with their own lot, believe that class just isn’t relevant anymore.

I mean, it’s funny isn’t it, that here we are talking about the Labour Party on an ostensibly left-wing blog and yet, as soon as you mention anything to do with the working-class, you get dismissed as an uppity ni… I mean, a chippy prole. You’d get a better reception on Melanie Phillips’ page. Maybe.

I find the entire concept of class unappealing in the extreme. People are individuals and transcend class. It seems to be only the left who likes to pigeonhole people into classes and “communities” rather than individuals with different identities at different times. It is an approach which seems to delight in a monolithic societal structure with no movement at all.

Isn’t it “turbulent” rather than “troublesome”?

You are quite right.

Actually, I only use it when Graham goes off on one of his class war fantasies.

You are quite wrong (why do people need to come up with such barefaced untruths?) Try reading what i said above about a united Labour party and then come back when you can address reality rather than your own fantasies.

What “realities” like the fact that Labour hates the working class? I may be gone for some time…

“I find the entire concept of class unappealing in the extreme. People are individuals and transcend class.”

I wouldn’t have had you pegged for an addled old hippie Stu. Actually, it’s not that, is it? You find it unappealing in the extreme because it doesn’t affect you. Class, that is. So you dismiss it.

Class doesn’t affect anyone unless they wish it to. What class is david davies now? Ken Livingstone? An ex-Bear Stearns banker friend of mine who now drives a minicab?

It is meaningless.

DT, 12:05:
Brilliand and spot on.

“You’d get a better reception on Melanie Phillips’ page. Maybe”

No maybe about it. The ‘progressive’ left has always exhibited a large dose of condescension towards working class people, not to say contempt, especially when the latter refused to genuflect and obey to the letter what Hampstead ’socialists’ thought they should do.

“Yes I would like an example of EXACTLY what you say happening”

I am talking, as you know (?), about those witty people who think that increasing government repression is a joke, it will peter out, serious people won’t take it seriously.

The National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany.

What “realities” like the fact that Labour hates the working class?

I hate to have to point out to you that the idea anyone said that labour hates the working-class on this thread is just another of your fantasies.

Now off you go and make a nice picture of Robert Mugabe using banknotes or something.

“N.O. “Well, you are wrong. I despise the New Statesman. This is an issue of press freedom vs. a disgusting bully.”

Don’t be silly. You know that this story isn’t true.”

Don’t talk such drivel. That was not my point. I was replying to the comment that the objections are all from New Statesman fans. Whether the story is or isn’t true is a separate issue.

Benjamin, do buy a dictionary. Tendencies is what someone would like to do, it’s not what he is capable of doing in practice. Brown has proved over 11 years that he wants to control every single thing around him, yeah, to the ends of the country.

Class doesn’t affect anyone unless they wish it to.

Hahahahahahaha! And the funny thing is that it will be me who gets accused of “class war crap” hahahahahahaha!

Thats me told, Graham. Any chance that you will deal with the point I raised?

Thought not.

I wonder for instance how much any future working-class politician will trust the back stabbers in the Labour party who so preferred Boris

I hate to have to point out to you that the idea anyone said that labour hates the working-class on this thread is just another of your fantasies.

Its hard to believe that the same bloke wrote these two.

Do you not see the difference between “Back stabbers in the Labour party” and the the Labour party in general then? Curious. Perhaps your parents didn’t pay for a good enough education after all!

Any chance that you will deal with the point I raised?

You made the point that Ken Livingstone is now middle-class and so therefore nobody would care that he did not come from the right background. My whole position on the thread has dealt with this point.

Please try harder.

Whether class exists or not one thing that you can be sure of on political blogs is that the minute you mention you are not from the usual background you will be assailed by the less confident and talented members of the priveliged classes who are almost pre-programmed to repel any attempted “boarders” from below.

Hi “Stu”

So only some of the LP hate the working class? How can we tell which ones they are?

I think KL is more than just middle class. Mayor of London and worth quite a lot of money. Thats upper class to me. But for you it is where you come from that matters, not where your efforts have taken you. A strange view and one that appears to clour your views on so many issues.

the less confident and talented members of the priveliged classes

Is that me? Cripes I had no idea. And I thought that my Grandad was an ironmonger. May be I really am an aristocrat after all…

“I think KL is more than just middle class. Mayor of London and worth quite a lot of money. Thats upper class to me.”

Rrrrright. To be honest, I think you’d be better off ducking out of this one Stu.

How much money and power do you need to transcend a class boundary Paul? One million? Five? Councillor? MP? Mayor? Lord? Or does a mans accent make it impossible.

“How much money and power do you need to transcend a class boundary Paul?”

Stu, it’s not just about money. Although money, of course, plays a part. It’s 2008 and you need a lesson on what the British class system is? Like I said, you’d be better off just leaving it alone.

As I thought the concept of class is so indefinable as to be meaningless.

It is meaningless.

Subjectively, I think can be true for some people and in some circumstances. And if a street-sweeper from a long line of street sweepers wins the lottery, does he jump 5 rungs on the class ladder overnight?, etc..

But class absolutely matters whether you like it or not. Unless you believe that only those schooled Westminster, Gordonstoun, Fettes and Eton etc.. are capable of running the country, you have to ask yourself why the alumni of these places and those like them are so over-represented in the HofC, in the upper-echelons of the civil service and on the boards of the biggest companies. You’d have to find other reasons to explain, for example, why 56% of Britain’s gold medals won at the Beijing Olympics were won by privately educated men and women, when such people make up only 5%* of the total population.

*I pulled this figure out of my arse, but I doubt I’m far wrong.

So only some of the LP hate the working class? How can we tell which ones they are?

Personally I think very few of the LP “hate” the working-class (That’s usually a position adopted by Leninists IMHO.) However, that many feared and distrusted Livingstone because he came from a background outside their understanding (and to some extent did things differently because of that fact) is in my view very close to a fact and (unless you have been avoiding the HP discussions on the subject which continue to annoy Brett et al then I doubt really that you would find it hard to identify the people I am talking about.)

Stu is right. There is no such thing as Class, except in the minds of those like Graham who want to label people to make up for their own incompetancies. What class is Richard Branson then, Graham?

Brownie, the reason so many successful athletes come from private schools is because those are the schools were effort, competition, personal endeavour and *winning* are encouraged. Unlike the vast swathes of educational wastelands suffering under the yoke of liberal “all must have prizes” theology where even fucking egg and spoon races are forbidden in case the poor wee diddums are scarred for life by not winning.

Unlike the vast swathes of educational wastelands suffering under the yoke of liberal “all must have prizes” theology where even fucking egg and spoon races are forbidden in case the poor wee diddums are scarred for life by not winning.

So nothing to do with a lack of opportunity for the millions of kids who CANNOT AFFORD TO JOIN A ROWING CLUB OR BUY A FUCKING HORSE then?

How many kids have you got, Morgy? When was the last time you went to a school sports’ day? I was at two in June and you know what?…they had games, and firsts and seconds, and prizes and everything.

When are you going to stop believing everything Melanie Philips tells you?

Morgy, whatever you think about state education generally, I take it you wouldn’t deny that from the millions of kids who go through the system every year we couldn’t find, say, 500 who were gifted enough to sit in the HofC? I assume you wouldn’t dispute this ought to be possible?

Assuming you wouldn’t, why do you think that the membership of the HofC is so unrepresentative of the country it runs if it has nothing to do with class and attitudes to class?

So nothing to do with a lack of opportunity for the millions of kids who CANNOT AFFORD TO JOIN A ROWING CLUB OR BUY A FUCKING HORSE then?

That’s ludicrous. I can’t afford a yacht, Brownie. I might be the world’s best Yachtsman, but because I can’t go down to Poole Quay and buy a new Sunseeker then obviously the fact that I haven’t won the America’s Cup is, by your logic, the fault of society.

And furthermore, because not everyone can have a new Sunseeker then your the solution is to make sure no one has a new Sunseeker?

Yours is the politics of envy, as simple as that.

What class is Richard branson? Well his grandfather was the Right Honourable Sir George Arthur Harwin Branson so I doubt he has ever needed to sign on for housing benefit!

Stu is right. There is no such thing as Class, except in the minds of those like Graham who want to label people to make up for their own incompetancies.

incompetencies*

Don’t be a tit Morgoth. Some of us spend our days amongst those of a different class -often trying to raise aspirations (of course both the Queen and a single mother living on benefits in Peckham both have a head.)

All you will achieve (eventually) with this childish nonsense about their being no such thing as class is to turn a blog such as HP into a discussion area for a small group of like-minded people as those of us who increasingly fail to recognise anything to do with our daily lives depart for more realistic climes (another crooked timber in fact) but that’s probably what you have always wanted really isn’t it?

I should add of course that despite Morgy’s hysterics in the real world we are talking about a Mayor who found it possible through his own talents to rise from sink school to a high position in the land. The discussion is merely about why some people found that to be a threat to themselves.

Unlike the vast swathes of educational wastelands suffering under the yoke of liberal “all must have prizes” theology where even fucking egg and spoon races are forbidden in case the poor wee diddums are scarred for life by not winning.

You mean like the one Kelly Holmes attended?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Christie_Technology_College

Graham,

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000449.html

“The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has told those marking the school curriculum tests that ‘F’ for ‘Fail’ is to be replaced by ‘N’ for ‘Nearly’, and that maths questions are to be marked ‘creditworthy’ or ‘not creditworthy’ instead of correct or incorrect. A QCA spokesman said – apparently with a straight face — that if pupils don’t pass these tests it doesn’t mean they have failed, because they will have ‘nearly reached the target’.“

Some of us spend our days amongst those of a different class -often trying to raise aspirations (of course both the Queen and a single mother living on benefits in Peckham both have a head.)

No, you spend your days filling people’s heads with nonsense that if they fail its not their fault, and that they’re entitled to succeed without hard work and effort.

Of course the QCA do not want people to think they have “failed” you twit. We live in a society where the idea that there are life-long opportunities for learning has been dangled in front of people for years. I have lost count of the amount of extremely intelligent thirty-something learners who I have taught on GCSE courses who were put off getting any qualifications for years because they were told they were failures at school. Are you really so shortsighted?

What does that have to do with athletics anyway?

No, you spend your days filling people’s heads with nonsense that if they fail its not their fault, and that they’re entitled to succeed without hard work and effort.

Oh go fuck yourself you nasty little racist cunt.

Nobody succeeds without hard work and effort you absolute scumbag.

“No, you spend your days filling people’s heads with nonsense that if they fail its not their fault, and that they’re entitled to succeed without hard work and effort.”

Very cunty and very stupid that, Morgoth.

Melanie Phillips could certainly do with going back to school if that article is the best she can come up with!

Nobody succeeds without hard work and effort you absolute scumbag.

Apart from all those propped up by the Welfare State.

Oh go fuck yourself you nasty little racist cunt.

Racist?

Where the fuck did that come from?

Experience of your comments over many years.

You really think someone on benefits “succeeds”? My your horizons are low.

were put off getting any qualifications for years because they were told they were failures at school

If there were that easily put off then they had bigger problems than just lack of qualifications.

Experience of your comments over many years.

Oh go fuck yourself. You can’t show one comment where I have engaged in even the slightest degree of floccinaucinihilipilification based upon who is person is, or their inherent properties. Because I have NOT made ANY, you knob.

You’re just resorting to whiny leftist smearing now. “Oh look! The nasty man has disagreed with me. He must be racist!”

The fact that you immediately resorted to “Racist!” when the subject of sink schools came up suggests you’re the racist here, not me. You’re the one who is obsessed with categorising and labelling people, not me.

As for benefits and succeeding, tell that to the 3rd generation of families on benefits. Oh yes, so much for your much-vaunted welfare state eh?

Of course they had bigger problems – often they took on jobs when they were 16 that could easily have been done by people less intelligent than themselves – or they became (for want of a better word) housewives and brought up children. At some point (as I said often in their thirties) they beat the “failure” label so easily applied to them by teachers and decided to study again. In many cases that was ten years wasted.

Now what possible reason could there be for a self-confessed Tory to keep parts of the population from the educational achievements that were attainable to them? Anywhere else in the world it would be seen as wasted potential – only in the UK could a small group of backward-looking poujadist wannabes feel threatened by it!

Hush Morgoth – aren’t you going to tell us there is no such thing as race?

You have made racist comments over many years on here and are well known ijn the blogosphere for doing so. Get over it. Even your right-wing heroes were not in denial about their racism.

As for benefits and succeeding, tell that to the 3rd generation of families on benefits.

better still you come tell it to the lawyer I know whose father was a layabout.

You have made racist comments over many years on here

Show me some then, fucker.

Else apologise.

and are well known ijn the blogosphere for doing so.

Projecting much?

Get over it. Even your right-wing heroes were not in denial about their racism.

So who are my heroes then? Do tell.

P.S. I’m NOT a conservative.

Go to virtually any thread and there will be a racist comment from you cunt.

Now you apologise for suggesting (without any evidence at all) that I (and I quote:) spend your days filling people’s heads with nonsense if they fail its not their fault, and that they’re entitled to succeed without hard work and effort.

You slimey little racist scumbag

Losing your memory?

Morgoth 17th september 2008 : 3.02 pm

I’ve given up on it.

Welcome to the Conservative Party then, David?

Go to virtually any thread and there will be a racist comment from you cunt.

Come on Graham, lets have the evidence. Show me a SINGLE post where I have made a racist comment. A single comment. I’ve been commenting here for close to five years, I guess. Go on, a single one.

Welcome to the Conservative Party then, David?

You did notice the Question Mark on the end, didn’t you? And the fact that David T was talking about the Labour Party the previous comment.

I’m not a member of the Tories and haven’t been for the best part of a decade. They’d be marginally better in power than Labour, but that’s not saying much. The closest political party to my views would be the Libertarian Party.

Let’s have your evidence for me filling up people’s heads that they are entitled to succeed without hard work and effort before I go looking for one of your racist remarks.

I bet I find more evidence quicker!

You did notice the Question Mark on the end, didn’t you?

I also noticed the “welcome” at the start.

Are you in the habit of welcoming people to organisations you don’t belong to or are you going to start gassing on about how you are inventing narrative viewpoints?

Perhaps that wasn’t you suggesting things about me without the slightest evidence above?

You racist scumbag

Less abuse, more posting of this supposed evidence.

Yes. As you started with the unsubstantiated allegations let’s see your evidence first.

Get to it slime.

That’ll be a “no” then?

Still no evidence of me spending my days:

filling up people’s heads that they are entitled to succeed without hard work and effort

then?

Oh look – here’s another thread where you are insisting you are not a racist and everyone else is insisting that you are ;-)

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1436

Cite for a posting of mine making a racist comment?

Postings from a hysterical gibbering idiot called Sunny Hundal who thinks that my objections to liberal bias at the BBC means I object to gays working there don’t count. You’ve only made your position worse, Graham.

My position is that you slighted my professional abilities and then could find no evidence for doing so.

I very much doubt that finding another thread full of people who think you a racist has made my position “worse”!

But good luck with the Monty Python black knight “I’ll bite your legs off” impression!

Do you still want to kill all Muslims by the way?

My position is that you slighted my professional abilities and then could find no evidence for doing so.

Fine. I apologise and withdraw the relevant remark (at 3.43pm) in entirety.

I very much doubt that finding another thread full of people who think you a racist has made my position “worse”!

That is irrelevant. I asked you to supply any proof of my posting racist comments. You haven’t.

Its simple Graham, I don’t care what you think of me. Call me a cunt. Indeed, I am an utter cunt. The one thing I am NOT is a racist. I have never made a single racist comment at HP or elsewhere. If you do not withdraw your accusations of racism (note: you can merrily call me a cunt, a scumbag and a fascist and a nutter all day if you wish), I’ll have to take the matter further.

P.S. the only current right-wing hero of mine is Steven Gerrard. And if you really want to know who my current hero is, its Paul Watson of the Sea Shepards, despite his dodgy diet.

Do you still want to kill all Muslims by the way?

I never did. I do want psychriatric treatment for them and all other monotheists though.

If you do not withdraw your accusations of racism (note: you can merrily call me a cunt, a scumbag and a fascist and a nutter all day if you wish), I’ll have to take the matter further.

Go on then.

Go on then.

I have. Check your inboxes.

Nothing there except an invitation to “beat inflation with these beautiful bonds” from foolmail.

I sent it to the address mentioned on the contact page.

DavidT will probably read it in about three weeks time then.

“Nobody succeeds without hard work and effort you absolute scumbag”

Define ’succeeds’. There are plenty of people born to money, and those who with charm and chutzpa but no work to speak off do very well.

Ken went to Tulse Hill Comprehensive and Phillipa Fawcett College of Education.

Which of the electorate held that against him in voting him out Graham? Which of them knew or cared where he was educated?
Ken’s problem was epitomised by Lee Jasper and all who sailed in him and his ill judged support for Sir Ian Blair.

Define ’succeeds’.

No need. The context was very clear and Morgoth was talking about the adult students who I teach.

Which of the electorate held that against him in voting him out Graham?

Again this is a total miss in terms of the discussion. Because a) Livingstone’s vote was up and b) we are quite clearly talking about members of the Labour party who held his background against him rather than the electorate.

Now I realise that for many the chance to attack (at every opportunity) someone whose background is working-class is far more interesting than discussing the issues of the post but please have some respect for Brett who made it clear above that he wanted to talk about Martin Bright and Gordon Brown.

BTW, whoever is responsible for current masthead….you’re ‘aving a larf.

Yes most people who see it won’t understand it, unlike previous mastheads that had people of the moment on it, and it doesn’t seem like a big enough issue.

My main problem with it is a complete absence of evidence to support the point it is trying to make.

“Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to make up any old shit in an effort to back yer mate”

apparently.

“Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to make up any old shit in an effort to back yer mate”

In that case it should have a picture of Gene and Timmy competitively fellating Obama.

Minor fact. Sarah Brown/Macauley used to do The Staggers PR.

“as far as I am concerned the “guns” were turned on a succesful Mayor by supporters of a successful PM. You may not see it that way but please be prepared to accept that some of us do.”

“we are quite clearly talking about members of the Labour party who held his background against him rather than the electorate.”

Well, I think there were plenty of the sort you mention, Graham, like myself, who gritted our teeth and voted for the guy because he was the Labour candidate. I can’t stand the man, but I voted for him for because he was a great deal more interested in the average Londoner and their lives and concerns than some Etonian Tory twat. (Note: not all Etonians are twats, nor even all Tories, but to be both of those things does rather increase the possibility that that might be so.) I never disliked Livingstone because of his background, and I’m sure those of similar views to me who couldn’t bring themselves to back him didn’t fail to Do The Right Thing because of his background.

Generally, though, as ever, you are getting in trouble for saying provocatively sensible things. I occasionally wonder if I should be concerned that a generally pro-Blairite, pro-liberation left blog that so aptly mirrors my own opinions should attract so many barking right-wing wingnuts as commenters. But then I get distracted and put it to the back of my mind.

Benji v Nearly Oxfordian? Was it Kissinger who said he wished both protagonists of the Iran-Iraq war could lose?

Ben dribbles about wingnuts … the poor tosser doesn’t even own a mirror, it seems.